Ratel is smart. The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.

Yes, I think like you.
He has a great passion for GT racing, he has it in his soul, for him it is a great feeling and that does not happen with the rest of the CEOs of IMSA and the ACO. Usually when somebody has this passion, he has better ideas and better things are done.
The next year with the arrival of the new Aston GT3 the V12 engines will be out of GT racing. With this new series he can have the return of some V12s cars and it is fantastic, even if that cars are a bit more expensive.

“GT4 should stay small cars, like the Cayman, M4 and Alpine. It’s not downscaled AMGs and R8s. They are GT3.

Now I'm wondering if the AMG and the R8 could be adapted to GT2-specs by turning up the power. I'm sure they won't be banned from GT4, but that would really be an easy solution to make cars available for the class.

The SRO competitions reached its peak about 3 years ago and the grids are decreasing slowly. There are no problems now, but maybe in the future.... The budget needed on GT3 is starting to be too high and some glentemen drivers flied to LMP3 (...or TCR for the most talented paydrivers). It seems that they are getting back to the origins.

The name is stupidly confusing. Just call it GTSC or something, for GT Super Car. Or GTX. No number, definitely not GT2. That number system makes it seem like a step up from GT3, but they'll actually be slower Can't say this idea is good, at least in naming. Maybe there's some rich guys out there that want to run their expensive toys, but it doesn't make sense to name it GT2 if they're not going to be faster in lap time than GT3. I feel like this will fail as did the mid-late 2000's GT1 sadly.

Why are the Aston Martin Vulcan and Porsche 911 GT2 RS targeted? Why would those manufactures build these cars to GT2-regulations? Which is supposed to be slower than GT3, where those manufactures use cars which are a step (s)lower compared to the targeted GT2 cars.

Why are the Aston Martin Vulcan and Porsche 911 GT2 RS targeted? Why would those manufactures build these cars to GT2-regulations? Which is supposed to be slower than GT3, where those manufactures use cars which are a step (s)lower compared to the targeted GT2 cars.

Surely if the GT2 format is a slight step down from GT3 the right model would be a DBS Superleggera? The Vulcan makes no sense for GT2 as its more in line with GTE

Why are the Aston Martin Vulcan and Porsche 911 GT2 RS targeted? Why would those manufactures build these cars to GT2-regulations? Which is supposed to be slower than GT3, where those manufactures use cars which are a step (s)lower compared to the targeted GT2 cars.

Well Porsche has already stated the GT2 RS is an interesting car for the GT2 class so that's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. And it seems like GT2 is about power, power and a little more power. Thus the GT2 RS is a perfect fit for the class over the NA GT3 engine. The Vulcan seems out of place because it is more of an old-school (non-hybrid) hypercar than the rest. Outside of the GT2 RS and a Superleggera Lamborghini (I had forgotten the DBS Superleggera, thanks bcarr for that reminder), I'm not sure what else out there matches the class on the street. Do they think Ferrari is going to build up the new F12 into a racer? Corvette I think uses, or used, the ZR-1 as the GTE car model so making an additional car with the same moniker but now slower? And unless GT2 is guaranteed a spot in WC there's no way P&M are building one. Audi, MB, BMW, Nissan, Bentley are already using their halo car in GT3 (and a couple in GT4) so they're expected to build another car? Although I understand the desire to get the R8 and AMG out of GT4 to GT2, they are not like the rest of the field. And honestly a big(ger) power AMG coupe?? It's a baby Vette with that rumble, of course occasionally AMG seems to have stood for A(merican cars) M(ade by) G(ermans) with their more power than chassis 63 series cars.

__________________
It was fun while it lasted, have enjoyed the people I've met but the measuring contests and arguments over who's more insider and who's smarter has just made it not worth the effort any longer. It should be fun, not work and it's just work to find actual information.

The name is stupidly confusing. Just call it GTSC or something, for GT Super Car. Or GTX. No number, definitely not GT2. That number system makes it seem like a step up from GT3, but they'll actually be slower Can't say this idea is good, at least in naming. Maybe there's some rich guys out there that want to run their expensive toys, but it doesn't make sense to name it GT2 if they're not going to be faster in lap time than GT3. I feel like this will fail as did the mid-late 2000's GT1 sadly.

Sums up my view pretty well. I suspect this will just spread entries thinner and hurt other series

However, since they're keeping GT3 and GTE separate they missed a trick. Could've used this to rename everything and have it make sense.

GTE -> GT1
GT3 -> GT2
New GT2 -> GT3
GT4 - GT4

And the new LMP1 stuff could be GTP. Everything would be in 'order'. And IMSA would have GT1 and GT2, which is awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TF110

The name is stupidly confusing. Just call it GTSC or something, for GT Super Car. Or GTX. No number, definitely not GT2. That number system makes it seem like a step up from GT3, but they'll actually be slower Can't say this idea is good, at least in naming. Maybe there's some rich guys out there that want to run their expensive toys, but it doesn't make sense to name it GT2 if they're not going to be faster in lap time than GT3. I feel like this will fail as did the mid-late 2000's GT1 sadly.

Isn't part of the problem with the rather dumb naming (IMO) that Ratel (or SRO) owns the GT2 and GT4 trademark? I read that on a DailySportsCar or Endurance-Info (probably the latter) article a while ago.
There was no mention of him also 'owning' GT1 or GT3.